Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 105–114 | Cite as

Magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with peroneal tendinopathy and peroneal tenosynovitis

  • Richard Kijowski
  • Arthur De Smet
  • Rajat Mukharjee
Scientific Article

Abstract

Objective

To compare the magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings of a group of patients with clinically diagnosed peroneal tendonopathy and peroneal tenosynovitis with the MR imaging findings of a control group of patients with no clinical evidence of peroneal tendon disorder.

Subjects and methods

The MR examinations of 24 patients with symptomatic peroneal tendinopathy or peroneal tenosynovitis and 70 patients with no clinical evidence of peroneal tendon disorder were retrospectively reviewed to determine the presence or absence of four MR imaging findings: 1) predominantly or uniform intermediate signal intensity within the peroneal tendons on one or more axial proton density-weighted images, 2) predominantly or uniform intermediate signal intensity within the peroneal tendons on three consecutive axial proton density-weighted images, 3) intermediate T2 signal intensity within the peroneal tendons, and 4) circumferential fluid within the common peroneal tendon sheath greater than 3 mm in maximal width. The sensitivity and specificity of these MR imaging findings for determining the presence or absence or symptomatic peroneal tendinopathy or peroneal tenosynovitis were calculated.

Results

The sensitivity of MR imaging findings 1, 2, 3, and 4 for determining the presence of peroneal tendinopathy or peroneal tenosynovitis were 92%, 92%, 50%, and 17% respectively. The specificity of MR imaging findings 1, 2, 3, and 4 for determining the absence of peroneal tendinopathy or peroneal tenosynovitis were 57%, 79%, 93%, and 100% respectively.

Conclusion

The presence of predominantly or uniform intermediate signal intensity within the peroneal tendons on three consecutive axial proton density-weighted images is a highly sensitive and moderately specific indicator of symptomatic peroneal tendinopathy. The presence of intermediate T2 signal within the peroneal tendons, and the presence of circumferential fluid within the peroneal tendon sheath greater than 3 mm in maximal width, are highly specific indicators of peroneal tendinopathy and peroneal tenosynovitis respectively.

Keywords

Peroneal tendons Tendinopathy Tenosynovitis MRI 

References

  1. 1.
    Clarke H, Kitaoka H, Ehman R. Peroneal tendon injuries. Foot Ankle Inter 1998;19:280–8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sammarco G. Peroneal tendon injuries. Orthop Clin North Am 1994;25:135–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sammarco G, DiRaimondo C. Chronic peroneus brevis tendon lesions. Foot Ankle 1989;9:163–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khoury N, el-Khoury G, Saltzman C, Kathol M. Peroneus longus and brevis tendon tears: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology 1996;200:833–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosenberg Z, Beltran J, Cheung Y, Colon E, Herraiz F. MR features of longitudinal tears of the peroneus brevis tendon. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:141–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schweitzer M, Eid M, Deely D, Wapner K, Hecht P. Using MR imaging to differentiate peroneal tendon splits from other peroneal disorders. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:129–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sobel M, Bohne W, Markisz J. Cadaver correlation of peroneal tendon changes with magnetic resonance imaging. Foot Ankle 1991;11:384–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rademaker J, Rosenberg Z, Delfaut E. Tear of the peroneus longus tendon: MR imaging features in nine patients. Radiology 2000;214:700–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Major N, Helms C, Fritz R, Speer K. The MR imaging appearance of longitudinal split tears of the peroneus brevis tendon. Foot Ankle Inter 2000;21:514–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosenberg Z, Bencardino J, Astion D, Schweitzer M, Rokito A, Sheskier S. MRI features of chronic injuries of the superior peroneal retinaculum. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1551–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shellock F, Feske W, Frey C, Terk M. Peroneal tendons: use of kinematic MR imaging of the ankle to determine subluxation. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:451–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bencardino J, Rosenberg Z, Serrano L. MR imaging features of diseases of the peroneal tendons. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2001;9:493–505.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ton E, Schweitzer M, Karasick D. MR imaging of peroneal tendon disorders. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:135–40.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mota J, Rosenberg Z. Magnetic resonance imaging of the peroneal tendons. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1998;9:273–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yao L, Tong G, Cracchiola A. MR findings in peroneal tendonopathy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1995;19:460–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Erickson S, Cox I, Hyde J, Carrera G, Strandt J, Estkowski L. Effect of tendon orientation on MR imaging signal intensity: a manifestation of the “magic angle” phenomenon. Radiology 1991;181:389–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenberg Z, Bencardino J, Mellado J. Normal variants and pitfalls in magnetic resonance imaging of the foot and ankle. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1998;9:262–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schweitzer M, van Leersum M, Ehrlich S, Wapner K. Fluid in normal and abnormal ankle joints: amount and distribution as seen on MR images. AJR 1994:162:111–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hawass N. Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients. Br J Radiol 1997;70:360–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simel D, Samsa G, Matcher D. Likelihood ratios with confidence: sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:763–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haims A, Schweitzer M, Patel R, Hecht P, Wapner K. MR imaging of the Achilles tendon: overlap of findings in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Skeletal Radiol 2000;29:640–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martin C, Schweitzer M. MR imaging of epicondylitis. Skeletal Radiol 1998;27:133–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mackay D, Rangan A, Hide G, Hughes T, Latimer J. The objective diagnosis of early tennis elbow by magnetic resonance imaging. Occup Med 2003;53:309–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kijowski R, De Smet A. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients with medial epicondylitis. Skelet Radiol 2005;34:196–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Kijowski
    • 1
  • Arthur De Smet
    • 1
  • Rajat Mukharjee
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Wisconsin HospitalMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of Wisconsin HospitalMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations